SpiceJet ₹144.5 crore deposit: Delhi HC rejects review

What the Delhi High Court decided

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed review petitions filed by SpiceJet and its promoter and managing director Ajay Singh against an earlier direction to deposit about ₹144.51 crore in court. The matter relates to a long-running arbitration dispute with Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways Pvt Ltd. Justice Subramonium Prasad also imposed costs of ₹0.005 crore on the airline and Singh. The court declined to accept an alternative proposal to offer an immovable property in Gurugram as security in place of a cash deposit. It directed SpiceJet and Singh to deposit the remaining amount within four weeks.

The deposit order and how the amount was computed

The deposit requirement flows from a sequence of enforcement and interim directions connected to the arbitral award. In earlier proceedings, the High Court recorded that SpiceJet and Singh had admitted that ₹194.51 crore was due and payable toward interest under prior Supreme Court directions. The court noted that ₹50 crore had already been deposited. After that adjustment, the balance amount to be deposited works out to ₹144.51 crore.

On January 19, the court directed SpiceJet and Singh to deposit the balance within six weeks. On March 18, the court extended time to make the deposit by four weeks. SpiceJet’s later review plea sought reconsideration of this insistence on a cash deposit.

Why the court refused property in place of cash

SpiceJet proposed substituting the deposit with a Gurugram property offered as security. One account of the hearing said the property was described as unencumbered and valued at about ₹147.77 crore (also reported as approximately ₹148 crore). The court refused the substitution request.

Counsel for Maran and KAL Airways argued that the proposed property could not be treated as clean security. Senior advocate Jayant Mehta submitted that Singh’s Gurugram property was encumbered with IDFC Bank. The High Court declined to accept property attachment in place of the monetary deposit.

‘Financial distress’ argument and the court’s response

SpiceJet and Singh sought review on the ground of financial distress, arguing that depositing the amount would be difficult. Another line of argument referred to the West Asia hostilities, stating that flights were suspended due to the conflict and that the airline expected support from the Indian government given hardship in the aviation sector.

The High Court did not accept these grounds for review. It observed that the Supreme Court had already refused similar relief and that the arbitral award was already at the stage of execution. The court also said the airline’s declining financial health had not changed in a way that justified reopening issues already considered earlier.

The court’s reliance on Supreme Court history

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed SpiceJet’s challenge to the deposit direction and imposed costs of ₹0.01 crore. In another part of the litigation history cited before the High Court, the Supreme Court had directed steps including encashment of a ₹270 crore bank guarantee and required SpiceJet to pay ₹75 crore toward interest, warning that non-compliance would make the award fully executable.

Justice Prasad’s order, as reported, recorded that hostilities in West Asia were an event in February 2026, while the Supreme Court had made the arbitral award executable on July 7, 2023. The High Court said such later events could not be used to gain advantage when the execution status had been settled earlier.

What the judge said about repeated filings

In dismissing the review, the court imposed costs and recorded strong observations about compliance. The order stated that the petitioners were “constantly disobeying” the Supreme Court’s orders. It also noted that, after earlier indulgence, the petitioners were now “only abusing the indulgence” granted. In the related March 2026 order rejecting the modification plea, the High Court had also described the repeated arguments as an abuse of process when similar grounds had already been raised before the Supreme Court.

Background: the arbitration dispute with Maran and KAL Airways

The dispute traces back to events after the transfer of ownership and control of SpiceJet, and issues relating to non-issuance of warrants in favour of Maran. Multiple reports in the provided material summarised the July 2018 arbitral award differently. One account said the tribunal directed SpiceJet and Singh to refund ₹308.21 crore to Maran and KAL Airways, with interest at 12% per annum from November 2015. Another account said the tribunal ordered SpiceJet to refund ₹579 crore along with interest, while rejecting a claim for over ₹1,300 crore in damages.

The enforcement has seen several rounds before the High Court and the Supreme Court, with interim deposit and bank guarantee structures discussed in earlier stages. The High Court’s current focus is on ensuring compliance with the balance deposit obligation that remains outstanding.

Key facts at a glance

Market impact: what this means for SpiceJet

The immediate implication for SpiceJet is a court-mandated cash outflow of ₹144.51 crore within four weeks unless stayed by a higher forum. The airline has argued that enforcing the deposit could jeopardise operations and intensify financial strain. But the High Court’s refusal to accept property security indicates the court’s preference for a cash deposit at this stage of execution.

For investors and creditors, the order highlights the persistence of legal and enforcement risk around the Maran-KAL Airways dispute. It also underscores that courts may take a strict view of repeated filings on grounds already adjudicated, especially after the Supreme Court has imposed costs and described challenges as abusive.

What to watch next

SpiceJet and Ajay Singh must now comply with the four-week deposit direction issued by the Delhi High Court. The litigation remains centred on execution and compliance with prior directions, with the court explicitly noting the Supreme Court’s earlier stance. Any next step would likely be seen through further applications or appeals, but the current order leaves a clear compliance timeline on record.